• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Main














Group Title: Research Report - University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; BRA1982-11
Title: Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in spring transplanted tomato
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056139/00001
 Material Information
Title: Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in spring transplanted tomato
Series Title: Research Report - University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; BRA1982-11
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Gilreath, J. P.
Publisher: Agricultural Research & Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1982
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056139
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62395885

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Historic note
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida






SHUME LIBRARY
100
S- 1 JGRIUjURAL RES RCH & EDUCATION CENTER
.. ..,/ AS, Uni ersity of Florida
%) : Bradent Florida 33508
1/ .. 0 i.IF.A.S. Univ. of Florida
Bradenton AREC esearcReport-BRA1982-11 Mfay, 1982
EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL IN SPRING TRANSPLANTED TOI4ATO1
J. P. Gilreath2

ABSTRACT. Various herbicidal treatments were applied in an unmulched
planting of transplanted 'Hayslip' tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)
in the spring of 1981. Herbicides evaluated were acifluorten (Tackle ),
bifenox (6odown ), diphenamid (Enide"), metribuzin (Sgncor ), napropamide
(Devrinol ), pebulate (Tillam ), pendimethalin (Prowl ), sethoxydim (Poast),
thiobencarb (Bolero ), trifluralin (Treflan ), Hoe 00661, and MC 10108.
Good season-long grass control was provided by napropamide (1.0 lb a.i./A
pretransplant) in combination with metribuzin (0.25 lb a.i./A post directed).
Post directed applications of metribuzin (0.25 lb a.i./A) alone and in
combinations with napropamide (1.0 lb a.i./A pretransplant) and with Hoe
00661 (0.50 and 0.75 lb a.i./A post directed) resulted in acceptable
broadleaf weed control and the highest total yields. No herbicide provided
adequate control of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.). Tomato plant
vigor was good to excellent with all treatments, except acifluorfen post
transplant which was very phytotoxic. The best overall herbicide treatments
based on weed control and total yield were metribuzin (0.25 lb a.i./A)
post directed + napropamide (1.0 lb a.i./A) pretransplant and metribuzin
0.25 lb a.i./A) + Hoe 00661 (0.50 and 0.75 lb a.i./A) post directed.


Weed control is a major problem in tomato production on sandy soils in Florida.
The long growing season and production under different environmental conditions
during spring and fall result in considerable diversity of weed species present and
their severity of infestation. Lack of weed control increases harvest costs, while
reducing yield and grade of marketable fruit and effectiveness of pesticides. A
number of effective herbicides are available; however, need continues to exist for
testing of new compounds due to problems with some existing compounds and lack of
adequate season-long weed control with any single compound. Trifluaralin provides
erratic grass control on low organic matter sands (2). Metribuzin, although
providing good to excellent weed control, can be p;hytotoxic under certain environ-
mental conditions (1). Failure of any single herbicide to provide season-long weed
control indicates a need for more emphasis on acceptable postemergence materials.
Recently, new compounds have been developed by the chemical industry which hold
promise for vegetable weed control. Research reported here was conducted to
evaluate efficacy and phytotoxicity of a number of compounds, both labeled and
non-registered on transplanted tomatoes.
1Mention of a herbicide does not constitute or imply a recommendation or endorsement
2by the author or the University of Florida.
Assistant Professor (Weed Science), The Agricultural Research & Education Center,
5007-60th Street East, Bradenton, FL 33508.








Materials and Methods
Six weed old 'Hayslip' tomato plants were transplanted on March 31, 1981,
into Myakka fine sand (1.2% organic matter, pH 6.6), fumigated with ethylene
dibromide (6.0 lb a.i./A), and grown on unmulched raised beds with seepage
irrigation. Unmulched culture was used to facilitate evaluation of compounds
for weed control and caution in interpretation should be exercised as some
materials may not perform the same under plastic mulch. Initial fertilization
was 1000 lb/A of both 6-6-6 with TEN #300 and dolomitic lime broadcasted and
incorporated. Subsequent nutrition was supplied by sidedressing with 6-6-6
and 18-0-25 as needed to supply a total quantity of 111 lb N, 90 lb P20A,
and 178 lb KO0 per acre. Plot size was 4.5 ft x 22 ft with 10 plants per
plot spaced 2 ft apart. Experimental design was randomized complete block
with 4 replications. Yields per acre were calculated based on cultivated row feet.
Preplant incorporated (ppi), pretransplant (pre) (March 31), posttransplant
(post) (April 2) and layby (April 18) herbicide treatments (Table 1) were applied
in a 26.6 gal/A preparation with a CO, back pack plot sprayer at 29 psi pressure
with two 11004 teejet nozzles. Ppi tPeatments were incorporated with a rolling
incorporator by traveling down each plot twice in opposite directions. Pre- and
post treatments were incorporated with 0.5 inch water applied overhead on April 6.
Post directed spray (post d) treatments were applied in a 42.9 gal/A preparation
April 16 when weeds were approximately 2 inches in height with a CO2 plot sprayer
at 20 psi pressure with a TK-4 flood jet nozzle.

Weed control ratings were made April 20, May 12 and July 2. Crop vigor
ratings were made April 20 and Nay 12, and fruit were harvested June 8, 19 and 30
as pinks or more mature and total weight recorded. Predominant grass species
were crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris {Retz.} Koel) and goosegrass (Eleusine indica
{L.} Gaertn.). Principal broadleaf weeds were yerba-de-tago (Eclipta alba {L.1
Hassk.), pigweed species, mainly slender pigweed (Amaranthus viridis L.T smooth
ground cherry (Physalis subglabrata Mackenzie and Bush) and hemp sesbania (Sesbania
macrocarpa Muhl. {S. Exaltata (Raf.) A. W. Hill}).

Results and Discussion
Approximately one-half of the ppi, pre- and post treatmentsprovided acceptable
early grass control. Low ratings for early grass control with the post directed
treatments were because the herbicides had not yet been applied. By midseason
only those treatments employing metribuzin as a post directed spray and pendimethalin
ppi provided acceptable grass control. Napropamide pre in combination with metribuzin
post directed was the only herbicide treatment to provide good season-long grass
control.

Acceptable early broadleaf weed control was obtained with metribuzin ppi,
napropamide pre + metribuzin post directed, MC 10108 ppi, and pendimethalin ppi.
Post directed applications of metribuzin alone and in combination with napropamide
pre and Hoe 00661 post directed provided fair to good season-long broadleaf weed
control. None of the herbicides used in this experiment resulted in adequate
control of purple nutsedge. Failure of napropamide and several other preemergence
herbicides (e.g. diphenamid and thiobencarb) to perform satisfactorily in this
experiment was believed to be due to inadequate moisture in the upper several
inches of the soil.














Tomato plant vigor was good to excellent for all treatments (Table 2), except
acifluorfen post which was extremely phytotoxic. Significant differences in yield
were generally not evident until the second picking when sethoxydim and acifluorfen
yielded significantly less than the hoed check. The remaining treatments were
not significantly different in yield from the hoed check at the second picking.
Thus, most herbicide treatments did not significantly affect early fruit set and
development. By the third picking, only napropamide + metribuzin and 0.75 lb a.i./A
of Hoe 00661 + metribuzin yields were comparable to the hoed check. On the basis
of total yield the best herbicide treatments were napropamide + metribuzin, and
both rates of Hoe 00661 + metribuzin. These treatments were not significantly
different from the hoed check. Acceptable yields (greater than 26 tons/A) were
obtained also with metribuzin ppi and post directed MC 10108, pebulate + napropamide,
pendimethalin, and Hoe 00661 (0.50 and 0.75 lb a.i./A). The acceptable yields
provided by Hoe 00661 (0.50 and 0.75 lb a.i./A) suggest weed competition with tomato
plants was not a significant problem until midseason because it is a contact
herbicide which provides no residual activity. Evaluation of Hoe 00661 is continuing,
but industry has chosen to cease development of MC 10108 for the present time.

In this test several labeled and non-registered compounds were effective
in controlling weeds without reducing tomato yields. The best overall herbicide
treatments based on grass and broadleaf weed control and total yield under the
conditions of this experiment were metribuzin + napropamide and metribuzin +
Hoe 00661 (0.50 and 0.75 lb a.i./A).


Literature Cited
1) Messier, B. B. and R. A. Ashley. 1980. Effect of trifluralin on metribuzin
treated tomatoes. Proc. N. E. Weed Control Conf. 1980:110.
2) William, R. D. 1980. Weed control guide for commercial vegetable production
in Florida. Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. 196G.

3) Gilreath, J. P. 1981. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in tomato
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 94: (in press).






Influence of herbicide treatments upon weed
LIr BZ Uwda+nn FL 1001


pTreatment
Weedy check
Hoed check
Bifenox
(iODOWN)
Bifenox
(MODOWN)
IiC10108
Pendimethalin
(PROWL)
Trifluralin
(TREFLAN)
Metribuzin
(SENCOR)
Pebulate
(TILLAM)
+ Napropamide
(DEVRINOL)
Thiobencarb
(BOLERO)
Napropamide
(DEVRINOL)
+ Vetribuzin
SENIORR)
Slapropamide
;DEVRINOL)
Napropamide
(DEVRINOL)
Sethoxydim
PASTS)
Diphonamid
(ENIDE)
Acifluorfen
(TACKLE)
Metribuzin
(SENCOR)
Hoe 00661
Hoe 00661
Hoe 00661
+ Metribuzin
(SENCOR)
Hoe 00661
+ Metribuzin
(SENCOR)
ZWeed control


* te L Ullo aU "u i ou ;u W u j m m_
Lkxffaqu. *ga en I a
Rate Method
I Ih. i ,f


\ IU 0
/acre) I


2.0

4.0
0.50

0.75

0.75

0. 5

4.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

0.25
1.0 +
1.0

2.0

0.30

4.0

0.38

0.25
0.50
0.75
0.50

0.25
0.75

0.25

rating


V


\ppl.y


ppi

ppi
ppi

ppi

ppi

ppi

ppi
+ post

pre

pre +

post d
post &
layby

post

post

post

post

post d
post d
post d


Early

0 g
8.2ab

4.6cde

5.7cd
9.2ab

9.6a

8.9ab

9.0ab


9.4ab

9.0ab


9.5ab

3.0ef

6.9bc

0.2g

4.0def

1.8fg

4.2def
0 g
0 g


post d 1.8fg 9.3ab 5.8bcd


post d 0 g 9.6ab

of 10 = complete control,


YHerbicides were applied pretransplant
(post), post transplant directed spray
IRatings were made early, mid and late


6.2bc

0 = no


Purple x
Broadleaf Nutsedge
Early .id Late Early Lat


Grassx
Mid

0 j
10. Oa

1.8hij

2.0hi
6.2def

8.8abc

6.5def

5.0fg


5.7ef

3.2gh


9.5ab

3.2gh

4.9fg

0.5ij

1.8hij

0.2ij

8.Obcd
6.5de f
7.0cde


1.Ode 9.0a


0 e

control.


9.5a


Late

0 g
9.2a

3.5de

0.2fg
2.5ef

7.5ab

5.5bcd

0 g


3.5de

4.0cde


9.la

3.8de

4.8cde

1.0fg

0 g

0 g

4.2cde
0.8fg
4.5cde


e


0 e 0 c
7.0a 9.0a

0.8cde 0 c

0 e 0 c
2.5bc O.5c

1.8bcde 0.8bc

0 e 0 c

2.0bcd 0 c


0 e
9.5a

5.6bc

6.4abc
8.8ab

7.0abc

4.4cd

8.4ab


6.5abc

3.5cde


7.1abc

1.2de

4. 1cd

0.2e

3.5cde

1.8de

2. Ode
0 e
0 e


0 g
10.Oa

0.8fg

2.Scdef
4.0bc

1.Sdefg

2.5cdef

3.0cde


2.2cdef

0.5fg


9.5a

1.Oefg

0.5fg

0 g

0 g

0.5fg

9.4a
3.2bcd
5.2b


8.2ab 0 e I.Obc

8.2ab 0 e 0.5c


(pre), preplant incorporated (ppi), post transplant
(post d), or at layby over the top (layby).

in the cropping season.


Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the
5% level, as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.


0.6f
9.1a

6.2bc

6.0bc
6.8abc

3.1def

0.8f

3.1def


2.9ef

2.9ef


9.2a

0.9f

2.9ef

2.0ef

1.4f

2.5af

7.4ab
4.8cde
5.8bcd


1.Obc

0 c


0 c

0 c

0 c

0 c

0 c

0 c

0 c
1.Obc
2.2b


-- --


control in spring transplanted


.Tab'le, 1.


3.5b

0 e


1.5cde

0.5de

0 e

1.0cde

0.2de

0 e

0 e
0 e
0 e






Table 2. Effect of herbicide treatments upon tomato plant vigor and yield in spring
transplanted tomatoes. Bradenton, FL 1981.
Rate Method Yield (1000 Ib/acre)
(lb ai of Vigory Picking
Treatment /acre) Appl.z Early Hid First Second Third Total


Weedy Check
Hoed check
Bifenox
(NODOWN)
Bifenox
(rODOWN)
MC10108
Pendimethalin
(PROWL)
Trifluralin
(TREFLAN)
Metribuzin
(SENCOR)
Pebulate
(TILLAM)
+ Napropamide
(DEVRINOL)
Thiobencarb
(BOLERO)
Napropamide
(DEVRINOL)
+ Metribuzin
(SENCOR)
INapropamide
(DEVRINOL)
Napropamide
(DEVRINOL)
Sethoxydim
PASTS)
Diphenamid
(ENIDE)
Acifluorfen
(TACKLE)
Metribuzin
(SENCOR)
Hoe 00661
Hoe 00661
Hoe 00661
+ Metribuzin
.(SEICOR)
Hoe 00661
+ Metribuzin
(SENCOR)


9.5ax 8.0e
10.Oa 10.Oa


2.0


6.3b
8.8a


12.3ef 17.0f
22.9abcd 45.4a


35.6f
77.2a


9.2a 9.0bcd 7.2ab 19.1cde 21.1ef 47.4def


4.0
0.50

0.75

0.75

0.25


4.0

1.0

4.0

1.0


0.25
1.0 + 1.0


2.0


0.30


4.0


0.38

0.25
0.50
0.75
0.50

0.25
0.75


0.25


CHerbicides were applied pretrar
directed spray (post d), or at


7.Ob 8.5de 7.6ab 18.9de
9.8a 9.2abcd 6.9abcd 23.1abcd


16.8f 43.3ef
28.8cde 50.8bcd


9.5a 9.0bcd 6.5ab 26.2abcd 25.9def 58.7bcd

9.2a 8.5de 6.2b 19.6bcde 19.9ef 45.7ef


9.8a 9.8a


+ post 10.Oa 9.5abc


pre

pre


+ post
post
+ layby


post

post

post

post

post
post
post


post d


7.7ab 27.8ab" 24.0def 59.5bcd


7.4ab 25.3abcd 30.3cd 63.0b


9.5a 9.0bcd 7.3ab 19.0cde 23.7def 50.0cde


9.5a

10.Oa


10.Oa 7.4ab 24.8abcd 42.9ab 75.la


8.4de


7.3ab 18.6de 18.2f 44.2ef


9.5a 9.0bcd 7.2ab 21.1abcd 21.2ef 49.6cde

9.8a 8.5de 7.0ab 12.1ef 19.0f 38.2ef

9.8a 8.8cde 7.4ab 18.0de 18.7f 44.3ef


4.0c 4.8f


9.8a
9.8a
10.Oa


10. Oa
10.Oa
9.5abc


0.1c

7.2ab
7.7ab
7.9ab


5.1f

22.7abcd
28.4a
22.3abcd


8.6g

32.lcd
24.4def
31.5cd


13.7g

62.1bc
60.5bc
61.7bc


10.Oa 9.8ab 8.4ab 25.2abcd 35.9bc 69.3ab


Dost d 9.8a 10.Oa 7.lab 27.6abc 40.5ab 75.3a


isplant (pre), prep'
layby over the top


la
(


nt incorporated (ppi), post transplant
layby)


'Vigor rating of 10 = no injury, 0 = dead, with ratings made early and in the middle of
the cropping season.

Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the
5% level, as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.


0.25




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs